Posted on 03/21/2013 4:37:24 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is at the center of the latest "birther" conspiracy. But he's not the first to face this line of questioning.
A handful of politicians have been targeted in the last few years with the same accusation -- that they are not fit for the Presidency because they do not meet the constitutionally-mandated eligibility requirement of being a "natural-born" U.S. citizen.
Confusion around who qualifies as a "natural born" citizen has contributed to the debate, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase. Some incorrectly presume it only includes people born within the boundaries of the United States. In fact, by U.S. citizenship law you can be American "at birth" or a "natural born citizen" under a few circumstances that don't involve being born on the mainland. For example, if you're born on a U.S. military base abroad, like in Panama, that counts. You are still categorized as being American "at birth" if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens and fit a list of long and complicated requirements that arebroken down here.
Check out our list of politicians who have battled "birther" claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
just get it over with and make 0bama OFFICIALLY SUBMIT the birth certificate he’s flaunted to the world
what? what would be the problem with that?
all you anti-birthers should be ok with that... right?
Who wrote the misleading headline?
a natural born citizen is someone that is a citizen naturally... AS THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVES
it’s an extremely simple definition.
However, my read of of the moss on the pine trees says that Kid Kenya's relationship with Reggie Love is the real dynamite in this log jam. Some enterprising reporters ought to trace Reggie's movements ... they have, I am reliably led to believe ... intersect frequently with you-know-whose. This is real.
The guy LIVED in the WH for months. When early in the '12 campaign he surfaced in a homo porn video, they disappeared him overnight outa town with a bundle of cash and no kiss good-bye.
They’re at it again.
You say “Cruz’s parents and McCain’s parents had to apply for and show proof of eligibility to have their foreign born children recognized as U.S. citizens. Furthermore, their parents had to “take and subscribe” an oath of allegience to the U.S. on behalf of their children.”
And when did this take place Sven?
During the first Obama presidential campaign, in August, 2008, Bill Clinton was asked if he thought Obama was qualified to be president. Clinton knew what was meant by the question but instead of commenting about Obama's character, experience, knowledge of foreign and domestic policy, and leadership abilities, etc., he offered this rather cryptic reply:
"The constitution sets qualification for the president. And then the people decide who they think would be the better president."
"The constitution sets qualification for the president."? That's his answer? Bill Clinton made this reference to the Constitution shortly after America's latest fad, the "community organizer" from Chicago, popped up out of nowhere and stole his wife's destiny by winning, in rather sleazy fashion (including the shameless playing of "the race card"), the Democrat party's nomination for President.
It has been my opinion since that time that the Clintons know something, and that it was they who quite deliberately fanned the flames of controversy over Obama's birth. Remember, it was a prominent campaign-fund bundler and Hillary Clinton supporter, Philadelphia lawyer Philip Berg, who launched *the first* Obama eligibility lawsuit. That lawsuit was filed in August of 2008, shortly after Bill Clinton made his curious reference to the Constitution when asked if he thought Obama was qualified to be President. Coincidental timing? Sure it was.
No, the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms never vetted Obama. Why would they? Everything anybody wanted to know about Obama they could read in his two autobiographies. (shrug) What's to vet?
Meanwhile...
Associated Press Devotes 11 Reporters to "Fact Check" Sarah Palin Book
So you would trust the accuracy and legitimacy of a document released by Barack Obama or released under his authority then?
I would prefer that the original birth certificate be released under a court order from a judge, which is allowable under Hawaii law.
Sven........you said this the other day:
“Arpaio and Zullo are protecting Napolitano from criminal prosecution.”
I asked “What is your evidence for that?”
I asked you this the other day Sven and have yet to get a detailed explanation why you think that. Stop avoiding it and please answer the question.
“Consequently, Jindal and Rubio are natural born citizens.”
NO......they are not Sven. They are statutory citizens. A statutory Citizen is not a natural born Citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
A Disney property.
“Who wrote the misleading headline?”
How do you think it should have been written?
The American parent goes to the American Embassy, registers the birth, and the kid is a natural born citizen.
My grandson was born in England. My son went to the American Embassy to register the birth and the kid was a natural born American citizen and issued an American passport right then so he could return to the US whenever his father wanted to bring him here. His citizenship cannot be adjudicated away from him just as his father's can't (or mine). When they came to the US, my son and the baby were in the US citizen line while the mother, being English, was in the foreign line.
You are confused about your grandson. There is no possible way he is a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. He was registered a code statutory U.S. Citizen via 14th Amendment.
have him OFFICIALLY submit it.
and if it’s a forgery... well...
McCain was born in a civilian hospital on Panamanian soil.... not in the Canal Zone. In effect he is foreign born
The Senate Resolution passed in 2007 that claimed “eligibility” for McCain has no legal authority as Resolutions are not Bills and cannot become law
There is conspiracy in GOP Media also when dealing with Obama Eligibility. Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and a number of others pretty much helped Obama win reelection in 2012 by attacking Obama Eligibility people.... they were worse than the Liberal MSM.
Only a PhonyCon fool thinks the Liberal Media will not bring up the Eligibility of Cruz, Rubio, and some others if they ran
Too many GOP side with the Liberal Media on Obama Eligibility.... and those PhonyCons will help another Dem get elected
it’s an extremely simple definition.
Thank you for proving your previous statement wrong.
Rubio and Jindal are NOT Natural Born Citizens because their parents, at the time of their births, had citizenship in countries other than the USA: and therefore those children born to citizens of those other countries have claims to those other countries for citizenship.
It is extremely simple.
A Natural Born Citizen, born in the country to two parents who are themselves citizens, have no divided allegiance.
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
Putting the word “officially” in caps doesn’t change anything. The original, vault edition birth certificate is the property of the state of Hawaii. Obama has no authority to release state property.
What if there is a perfectly authentic Hawaii birth certificate on file that has false information on it because the crime of entering misinformation was committed at the time of the birth in 1961? The parents or grandparents could have bribed the attending physician to submit a real Hawaii birth record containing phony data.
Just because a birth certificate isn’t forged doesn’t mean that the data on it is legitimate and accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.